Archive 1
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Mil Mi-2PZL Mi-2 – almost all of the machines were produced by PZL -- Tangotango 06:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support Designation before the name of aircraft refers to factory where it was made so we have Mil Mi-8, PZL W-3, Areo L-39 etc. I agree that if some aircraft was made in many factories it's article name should refer to original name (but still all An-2 made in PZL Mielec are PZL An-2). But situation with Mi-2 is different, all production Mi-2s were made in one, and only factory - PZL Świdnik, so if some one saw Mi-2 in 99,99% probability it was PZL Mi-2, and thats why PZL Mi-2 is right name for this article.
Remember that all upgrades, all armed variant (like Mi-2URP, Mi-2URN), all modernizations (PZL Mi-2 plus, PZL Kania) were designed in PZL Świdnik.
Look at Mil Mi-38 article that redirects to Euromil Mi-38 (because Mi-38 is joint project of Eurocopter and Mil).
What is interesting Sikorsky UH-3 Sea King and Westland Sea King have separate articles - same copter produced in two different factories.corran.pl talk 11:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Negligible load on servers from a redirect, doesn't matter where the page goes so long as it's not being moved back and forth all the time, Mil is clearly identified as the designer in the lead paragraph, and PZL is clearly identified as the sole manufacturer in the lead. Sikorsky/Westland split is there because both articles are quite large. - Emt147 Burninate! 14:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose articles from designs from the Soviet days should always use the design bureau as its designator. Factories had absolutely nothing to do with design, and can be thought of as operating under license. You wouldn't call a license built DC-3 something other than a Douglas DC-3 would you? If some other design was also called DC-3 then it would be problematic if you know Douglas designed one, and say, Aeromecca designed another dissimilar aircraft, but they were both built by AVICII? 132.205.45.148 18:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Orphaned references in Mil Mi-2

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mil Mi-2's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "sipri1":

  • From Mongolian People's Army: SIPRI
  • From Polish Armed Forces: "SIPRI Publications". Milexdata.sipri.org. Retrieved 2011-11-20.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 17:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Removing Mongolian People's Army no listings of Mi-2's according to Stockholm Int'l Peace Research Institute - "Deals with deliveries or orders made for year range 1952 to 2012" Russia delivery to Mongolia (2) Mi-8MT/Mi-17/Hip-H Helicopters 2007 – 2008. FOX 52 (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)